Connect. Secure. Manage.
WAN Resilience
Assess WAN resilience beyond a second circuit, covering physical dependencies, routing convergence, operational procedures and application-level failure tests.
Devices supported
across the UK
Client locations
supported
Traffic handled
at peak time
Average
response time
Average response is not a resolution time or a contractual guarantee. Support scope and response commitments are agreed for each engagement.
WAN resilience plans how agreed services will continue when a link, device or shared resource fails. We test Cisco and Meraki designs against specific faults and recovery needs. Capacity and app recovery matter as well as spare paths. The scope also states what the support team must do during an incident to restore the service.
The whole path
Understand how sites, providers, cloud networks and security controls fit together.
Resilience that can be tested
Separate a second circuit from genuine end-to-end service resilience.
Provider coordination
Keep addressing, routing and escalation ownership clear across organisations.
Define the service that must remain available
We find the business workflows that depend on the WAN and the interruption each can tolerate. Critical apps, voice, remote administration and ordinary internet access may have different priorities. The design should state what remains usable during a failure rather than make an undifferentiated promise that the whole site stays online.
The need also distinguishes individual site resilience from central-service or disaster recovery. A branch can retain two working circuits while losing access to an app hosted at an unavailable hub. We map those dependencies so network availability is assessed in the context of the service the business actually needs.
Standards & partnerships
Confidence in the team behind your network.
Cisco Partner
Cisco Meraki
Cyber Essentials
Cyber Essentials PlusMCI Network Services is operated by Proxar Ltd. Certifications apply to the certified legal entity and the scope of its certificates. View accreditation information
Examine diversity across the complete path
Providers, access circuits, building entries, edge devices, switches and power supplies can introduce shared failure points. We review the evidence for independence and identify what is known, assumed or still awaiting supplier confirmation. Different commercial names on invoices are not enough proof of diverse physical infrastructure.
Where cellular or another alternative transport is considered, we assess its real role and limitations. Coverage, antenna placement, capacity and provider dependency can affect whether it is a useful backup. A technology being different from the primary circuit does not on its own make it suitable for every critical app.
A useful starting point
Not sure where to start?
Bring the requirement. We will help you define the engineering work.
Match routing recovery to the failure model
The design sets out how a failed path is detected and how traffic selects an alternative. Cisco and Meraki platforms offer different supported mechanisms, and the right choice depends on the topology and software. We review the conditions being measured rather than assuming a physical link-down event covers every provider failure.
We also consider restoration and unstable paths. A recovering circuit can cause repeated changes if the policy responds too aggressively. The customer needs a supported behaviour that matches the app need, with clear monitoring and an operational decision process when automatic recovery is not enough.
Different environments. The same care.
Built around the work
your network supports.
Finance, banking and the wider private sector. We start with the systems and people that depend on your connections.
Finance & banking
Market-data paths, routing and provider coordination on clients’ behalf.
Financial-market services ↗Offices & multi-site teams
Reliable access between people, workplaces and business applications.
Office network design ↗Data centres & cloud
Network boundaries, workload connections and operational ownership.
Data centre networks ↗Check capacity in degraded operation
Backup bandwidth is useful only in relation to the traffic it must carry. We assess peak demand, essential apps and the load transferred after a failure. A reduced-service plan may prioritise critical workflows while limiting bulk transfers or other less urgent activity.
Performance characteristics matter alongside bandwidth. Latency, loss and jitter can affect voice or interactive apps even when the backup has sufficient nominal capacity. We establish realistic acceptance criteria and avoid equating a successful failover status with an unchanged user experience.
Preserve security and application state
Alternative paths should maintain the intended inspection and access boundaries. We examine whether failover changes the firewall, public source address or VPN endpoint involved. Those changes can affect current sessions and external permissions. So they are considered before a design is described as seamless.
Application recovery is tested separately from route convergence. Some sessions may continue, while others reconnect or require user action. The design records those differences and identifies dependencies outside the network team's control, such as app clustering or external service allowlists.
Plan maintenance and operational recovery
Resilience should support planned work and unexpected faults. We review how devices, certificates and software can be maintained without removing every path at once. The maintenance model includes recovery access and the people needed locally when remote management is unavailable.
Monitoring should detect loss of redundancy before the final working path also fails. Alerts need an owner, provider contacts and a useful evidence-gathering procedure. A standby service that is never checked can be unavailable for months while the primary continues to mask the problem.
Test and document the actual protection
We agree a safe set of failure and restoration tests, observe representative apps and record the results. Tests are separated so the cause and effect remain clear. Where a scenario cannot be exercised, the limitation is stated rather than counted as a proven capability.
MCI's WAN resilience assessment can identify gaps in a current estate before redesign or procurement. We also implement agreed Cisco and Meraki improvements across UK sites. Share the important services, topology and outage concerns so we can define resilience in terms the business can assess, with evidence of what the network protects against and honest boundaries around what it does not.
Technical references
- Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN design guide — Cisco / Cisco Meraki
- Site-to-site VPN failover behaviour — Cisco / Cisco Meraki
Talk to a specialist
What does your network need next?
Tell us what you are planning, changing or trying to improve. We will help define a practical next step and the engineering scope.
+44 203 196 6566Choose option 1
sales@proxar.co.ukUK-wide service.
Most of our engineers are based in Kent, with a focus on London, Sussex, Essex and Berkshire.
Existing customers should use their agreed support and escalation channels. This form is for service enquiries, not a monitored emergency ticket.
Tell us what you need.
A short outline is enough. Please do not include passwords or sensitive network details.
Thank you. Your enquiry has been submitted.
Please check your name, email and message, then try again.
Your form session expired. Please try again.
Please wait a minute before sending another enquiry.
We could not submit your enquiry. Please call or email us instead.